Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DEC 23 1999
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
GREG VANDERWAGEN;
DEBORAH (VANDERWAGEN)
LUCAS, formerly known as Deborah
Slaughter,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
J.C. PENNEY LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign Insurance
Company,
No. 98-2279
(D.C. No. CIV-98-20-LCS)
(D. N.M.)
Defendant-Appellee.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
of this appeal.
1999), we affirm.
Plaintiffs are the beneficiaries on two life insurance policies issued by
defendant covering their father, who was killed while operating a bulldozer on
private land. Plaintiffs sought coverage for his death under the provision of the
policies covering death in land motor vehicle accidents. Defendant denied
coverage under this provision, on the basis that a bulldozer was not a land motor
vehicle, and paid them the benefits due under the policies for death resulting
from accidents not involving land motor vehicles or common carriers. The
difference in benefits between the two provisions of the policies is $120,000.
Plaintiffs brought this action to recover that difference.
-2-
operate a bulldozer. Therefore, the bulldozer did not satisfy the one policys
requirement that the operator be licensed. Turning to the other policy, the court
rejected plaintiffs argument that because bulldozer operators normally have
regular drivers licenses, the bulldozer fell within the licensing requirement.
It found that this interpretation was not equally plausible to defendants
interpretation, which was that normally licensed meant licensed to engage in
that specific activity, i.e., bulldozer operating. It therefore concluded that
defendants interpretation controlled.
On appeal, plaintiffs contend that a bulldozer clearly falls within the
policies description of a land motor vehicle, and alternatively, that the
description is ambiguous and should be construed in their favor to provide
coverage. They further contend that the court applied the wrong standard for
determining whether an insurance policy term is ambiguous, arguing that the
correct standard is whether the term is susceptible of differing reasonable
interpretations. Appellants Br. at 24 (citing
at 1212).
We have fully considered plaintiffs arguments and reviewed the record,
and we find their arguments unpersuasive. Even assuming the district court
applied the wrong standard for determining ambiguity, we see no reversible error
because the description of land motor vehicles is not reasonably susceptible to an
-4-
interpretation that would provide coverage. Therefore, for substantially the same
reasons as stated by the district court in its September 15, 1998 memorandum
opinion and order, we affirm its grant of summary judgment in favor of
defendant.
AFFIRMED.
John C. Porfilio
Senior Circuit Judge
-5-